Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.73 AVERAGE
3.73 AVERAGE
Sadly, upon finishing this book, I’ve come again to the conclusion I came to many years ago: Philip Roth was a decent writer who had the misfortune of being wildly overrated, and therefore forever disappointing, and, in this book especially, overreaching his talents in an attempt to live up to his larger-than-life image. Philip Roth, in my view, is capable only of writing about Philip Roth. His attempts to capture the voices of women or anyone who is not a transparent stand-in for Philip Roth are often embarrassing.
It’s with regret that I say that I really can’t understand why this book was as praised as it was, other than because people felt Roth had written an “important” book about an “important” subject. But Roth’s imaginative limitations are on full display here, and it quickly becomes clear that Roth is not the author to shoulder the burden of writing a Great American Novel about the African-American experience in the twentieth century. Roth was at the height of his power in “Portnoy’s Complaint,” rhapsodizing about f*cking dinner meats; he’s lost and powerless here.
This is a misbegotten and cringe-inducing hot mess.
It’s with regret that I say that I really can’t understand why this book was as praised as it was, other than because people felt Roth had written an “important” book about an “important” subject. But Roth’s imaginative limitations are on full display here, and it quickly becomes clear that Roth is not the author to shoulder the burden of writing a Great American Novel about the African-American experience in the twentieth century. Roth was at the height of his power in “Portnoy’s Complaint,” rhapsodizing about f*cking dinner meats; he’s lost and powerless here.
This is a misbegotten and cringe-inducing hot mess.
A very well written and intriguing book. I found myself interested in what happened to every character in the book, instead of just one or two.
Purchasing this book was a huge mistake. It was on sale, I remember being vaguely aware of it (or at last recognizing the title), and deciding to go ahead and getting it. Only to discover it was on my "not-interested" list.
After oodles of audiobooks, I'm pretty good at recognizing the difference between not liking a book and not liking the reader/narrator. I still cannot tell if the narrator was awful for this book, or he was just good at reading an awful book.
This book, this great-American-novel is so full of itself and its pretensions, and its adoration of its own vocabulary. It's so butthurt over PCness that it's its own steaming pile of "ists" (classist, racist, sexist, the list goes on.) It is too long and takes itself so seriously that it does not feel like one of those novels that is teaching you about the thing it abhors by being that thing, so if it is, well damn, you got me book (though I sincerely doubt it).
I think the part where the author uses a black female character to rant about PCness of racism made my eyes roll the hardest, but it was at the end of the book, otherwise, I might have just stopped it there, and called it my first audio-DNF.
After oodles of audiobooks, I'm pretty good at recognizing the difference between not liking a book and not liking the reader/narrator. I still cannot tell if the narrator was awful for this book, or he was just good at reading an awful book.
This book, this great-American-novel is so full of itself and its pretensions, and its adoration of its own vocabulary. It's so butthurt over PCness that it's its own steaming pile of "ists" (classist, racist, sexist, the list goes on.) It is too long and takes itself so seriously that it does not feel like one of those novels that is teaching you about the thing it abhors by being that thing, so if it is, well damn, you got me book (though I sincerely doubt it).
I think the part where the author uses a black female character to rant about PCness of racism made my eyes roll the hardest, but it was at the end of the book, otherwise, I might have just stopped it there, and called it my first audio-DNF.
The Human Stain is an intelligent, emotionally charged modern parable of the political and cultural atmosphere of late twentieth century America. Several characters were exceptionally well written and the place and time of the story was almost tangible. I was most impressed with the author’s insights into racial identity. However, several dull characters (including a neurotic French scholar and a stereotypically crazed Vietnam vet) and the narrator’s occasionally preachy attitude kept this good book from becoming great. I was also bewildered at how often Roth brought up the Clinton-Lewinski scandal, as if he thought his audience would not be able to pick up on the not-so-subtle hints in the first three pages. Several times I found myself wishing his editor had told him “Okay, yes, I get it, this story is partially about Clinton and Lewinski, just stop forcing Clinton-related dialogue into the novel.” Recommended for anyone looking for a page-turner with some depth, but I wouldn’t judge anyone who decides to skip a couple sections.
Bueno, me ha costado, pero lo he terminado por fin. No es que la historia no me parezca interesante, que sí, es la narrativa de Roth lo que no me ha convencido. Se me ha hecho excesivamente recargada y digresiva, me hacía perder el ritmo de la historia constantemente.
This book has some interesting things to say about identity and family and the burden of living to others’ expectations. However, some parts are preachy and a little too... hmmm... I think he romanticizes a fraught time in history and it kind of feels like some of the MAGA explanations of when America was supposedly so much better and how the current college-age generation are just snowflakes (this story takes place in 1999). There are some parallels with today’s political and academic climate.
I enjoyed the despicable characters (Delphine!) but hated the stream-of-consciousness writing. Some sentences go on for a whole page! Roth frequently changes POV, sometimes in the middle of a run-on sentence and I found it annoying rather than clever for the most part.
I don’t regret reading this, and I’d recommend it to others, but I don’t think it’s anything spectacular either. I’m looking forward to watching the movie now...
I enjoyed the despicable characters (Delphine!) but hated the stream-of-consciousness writing. Some sentences go on for a whole page! Roth frequently changes POV, sometimes in the middle of a run-on sentence and I found it annoying rather than clever for the most part.
I don’t regret reading this, and I’d recommend it to others, but I don’t think it’s anything spectacular either. I’m looking forward to watching the movie now...
This is the story of Coleman Silk, a revered and respected dean and professor at a small New England college. Two years before his retirement, Silk faces disgrace and ruin when he is accused of making racist comments in the classroom and then is found out to be having an affair with a woman half his age.
Through the eyes and narrative of Nathan Zuckerman, Roth's alter ego, the reader is given a piece by piece picture of Coleman Silk--his rage at the injustice done to him, his isolation from his former profession and colleagues, his relationship with his illiterate, much younger mistress, and the secret that he's harbored about himself and the lie that he's lived with for most of his life.
Set in 1998 against the backdrop of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, this novel is a probing look at successful, respected men brought down by their own actions/words/sexual proclivities, a scathing treatise on political correctness and small-college politics, a discourse on race and class. It is also a look at the hypocrisy and cruelty of human beings, their willingness and need to point fingers, to blame, to ruin reputations, to see and believe the worst of others. Through their actions and interference in the world human beings can't help but taint it, thus leaving behind what Roth calls "The Human Stain."
I think it has already been established that Philip Roth is one of the best writers still working today. He writes about things that matter, important things that have faced and are currently facing America. He's relevant and sharp and observant. Reading him is almost effortless, his prose is so strong and his sentences almost crackle with intensity and frantic energy, pulling you into his story, his world, demanding and gaining your attention.
However, despite these skills, I found this book uneven and not wholly effective. It was too long and tended to ramble a bit too much. The main story and the flashbacks into Coleman Silk's past and history were very interesting but were too spread out between long speeches and soliloquies. These tended to drag the story down and make reading a bit tedious. I found some of the characters, like Faunia Farely and Delphine Roux, multi-dimensional and fascinating but others were underdeveloped and one-dimensional and not very convincing.
Overall, a decent novel by a good writer dealing with important issues and themes. Not Roth's best but still a worthwhile read.
Through the eyes and narrative of Nathan Zuckerman, Roth's alter ego, the reader is given a piece by piece picture of Coleman Silk--his rage at the injustice done to him, his isolation from his former profession and colleagues, his relationship with his illiterate, much younger mistress, and the secret that he's harbored about himself and the lie that he's lived with for most of his life.
Set in 1998 against the backdrop of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, this novel is a probing look at successful, respected men brought down by their own actions/words/sexual proclivities, a scathing treatise on political correctness and small-college politics, a discourse on race and class. It is also a look at the hypocrisy and cruelty of human beings, their willingness and need to point fingers, to blame, to ruin reputations, to see and believe the worst of others. Through their actions and interference in the world human beings can't help but taint it, thus leaving behind what Roth calls "The Human Stain."
I think it has already been established that Philip Roth is one of the best writers still working today. He writes about things that matter, important things that have faced and are currently facing America. He's relevant and sharp and observant. Reading him is almost effortless, his prose is so strong and his sentences almost crackle with intensity and frantic energy, pulling you into his story, his world, demanding and gaining your attention.
However, despite these skills, I found this book uneven and not wholly effective. It was too long and tended to ramble a bit too much. The main story and the flashbacks into Coleman Silk's past and history were very interesting but were too spread out between long speeches and soliloquies. These tended to drag the story down and make reading a bit tedious. I found some of the characters, like Faunia Farely and Delphine Roux, multi-dimensional and fascinating but others were underdeveloped and one-dimensional and not very convincing.
Overall, a decent novel by a good writer dealing with important issues and themes. Not Roth's best but still a worthwhile read.
I read early Roth, and then for decades I couldn't decide where to start on his prodigious later output. I picked up this one pretty much at random, and I was amazed at the melding of modernist story structure with emotional insight, and a solid helping of agitprop -- sometimes a bit cartoonish but always intriguing and usually pretty funny. I certainly intend to push on through the Roth canon.
challenging
emotional
informative
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes